By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Resident_Hazard on 26 June 2011
Edit Thread
Viper1 said:
Resident_Hazard said:

Saying the PC is "already stronger than the PS4 will most likely be" based on no logic, information, or intelligent thought is a foolhardy comment at best, deliberate ignorance from someone who knows they're wrong and too stubborn to admit it at worst.

The PC, as it currently is, is barely a step up beyond the abilities of the PS3 and Xbox360, and to be truly advanced over either of those consoles means spending vastly more money on hardware to upgrade the PC to that level than it costs to simply own a PS3 or Xbox360.

I consider myself quit well versed in hardware technology and build computers as a side project for fun.  If you like, I can build a PC for under $400 that will most certainly take down the PS3/X360 in game performance.   As for competing against current top end PC hardware, not a chance.

The PS3/X360 may render a game at sub-HD levels or even 720p if you're lucky but rarely with much AA applied and then you'll get 30fps...60 if, again, you're lucky.   A top end PC will take the same game with better textures, more polygons, better shaders and give you 1920 x 1080 or higher, with lots of AA, lots of AF and more than 60 fps quite easily.

I don't think you grasp just how much more powerful PC's are than the HD consoles.  Irstupid is actually correct.  The PS4/Next X will not exceed the gaming capabilities of top end hardware right now.

Maybe this is just me, but I fail to see how a modern "high end" PC is more powerful than hardware that doesn't even exist yet.  The only way to know this would be to have the hardware specs of non-existant future machines.

Not that this really matters since PC gaming has long since fallen behind console gaming where sales are concerned.  For one thing, just because a tweaked high-end PC could handily show-up a modern console, most consumers have a vastly easier time playing those complex games on a console, and most don't bother with what is otherwise an expensive endeavor for the regular consumer.  Just because you can maybe build a super powerful PC for relatively cheap doesn't mean that's even remotely the norm for consumers.  Consumers pay three or four times what you quoted for Macs that handle a great deal less than playing Crysis 2 at it's maximum settings.  

I guess what I'm saying is that, while you--a tech-ish guy--can cleverly build a powerful PC for the cost of a PS3, the average consumer is unable to do so, and is content buying an inferior machine already built by, say, Apple or HP or Dell or Compaq, etc.  Especially if said consumer is using a laptop, which are typically no where near as easy to tweak as a PC tower that can just have more crap crammed into it.  I'm a huge gamer, but I really don't care about constantly upgrading my computer so that I can play the latest games at their maximum settings.  I just buy those games on the Xbox360.  

Of course, if they aren't on the Xbox360, I just don't bother.  I have enough to play anyway.

 

Edit:  Then again, it might not matter how the exact specs of the next Xbox and Playstation stack up against PC's of the same era anyway, since the only people that typically care about such differences are the extreme-minority tech-focused PC gamers looking to make those comparisons.  Okay, and the occasional developer that has the time and money to want to make the most technically powerful game imaginable.